aa5874

Science has recognised God? What God? Please check your Science books!!

jgreen44

The amount of evidence for resurrection after three days and humans floating into the sky is identical to the amount of evidence for a six day creation.
Generally speaking the position of science is that a type of event that has never been to known occur (such as a rotting corpse reanimating), a type of event for which there is no precedent or evidence in any context, is intrinsically impossible. Can you think of any exceptions?

Solo

The earliest Paulinists interpreted the altered consciousness and overwhelming sense of grandeur they experienced during their ecstatic (manic) highs as the revelation of the Son in their bodies, and the preview of the apocalyptic end of the world. We do not know what the Jerusalem Nazarene believed exactly but they were ecstatics also and evidently had some sayings about the coming of the Enochian Son of Man, which lore merged with Pauline version of the crucified Messiah some time after the war of 66-70.

It was a belief of these earliest congregations that their experience will visit on all humans as "the apocalyptic judgment" and only the faithful will survive the test of spiritual fitness, just as they (individually) pulled through the ordeal of depressive psychosis that regularly appears at the latter stages of hypermanic episodes. These were the vistas of hell !

The idea of hell being hot, Jesus visiting there, and administering a baptism of fire to his acolytes, relates to the experience a form of manic excitement featuring delirious states,such as Paul describes in 2 Cor 12. Paul might have suffered from a form of the disorder known as Bell mania, which often ends in exhaustion and death. I am considering his statement in in 1 Cr 13:3 (if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing ) as indicative of recurrent feverish episodes and the belief that the subject is in control of the process.

Jiri

jgreen44

These images of fire, such as the tongues of fire upon the heads of those present on the Day of Pentecost, also correlate well with the fire of Kundalini.

"The Kundalini, said Jung, is a spiritual energy best documented by (but by no means exclusive to) the yogis of India. It should not at all be surprising, should we take an open- minded and closer look at Islam, that as with the other great religions, we find a deeper, more mystical and universal message: that of self realisation and the mechanism by which it occurs–Kundalini awakening. Every culture and religion has had individuals who have achieved a living, spontaneous, direct experience of their religion. A dynamic, suprahuman awareness that went beyond dogma and blind faith. The Gnostics of Christianity, the Yogis of Hinduism, the Fang- Shi of Tao and the Sufis of Islam all achieved these states and each have spoken of experiences that, despite differences of appearance, are strikingly similar in content.

The kundalini is a feminine energy often described as an 'inner goddess' or 'mother energy'. Her ascent from the sacrum, through the chakras located in the spinal cord, is the process of self-realisation. When the kundalini arrives in the crown chakra (sahasrara) the seeker experiences the complete transformation of awareness. One is taken beyond the limits of the human mind into the mystical states of meditation described by sufis and yogis alike.

In fact C.G. Jung described the kundalini as the 'divine feminine 'or 'God the mother'. Notably, Mohammed's vehicle for his own ascent through the heavenly dimensions was the lady-faced, dazzling buraq. The buraq could well be a feminine, Arabic synonym for kundalini.

In conclusion Mohammed's ascent through the seven heavens was, in fact, the ascent of the kundalini, taking his consciousness with it, to divine union with the god almighty."

http://www.songsouponsea.com/Promenade/wildernessF.html

"But who may abide the day of His coming, And who shall stand when He appeareth?
For He is like a Refiner's Fire."

- Malachi 3.2

arnoldo

The verse in question may be a mistranslation and/or idiom from the Aramaic.

Eusebius reports this allegation.

avi

I am thoroughly confused.

Are you suggesting that Origen, a Greek Platonist, relied upon an Aramaic text of Mark, or Matthew, rather than the original Greek?

Or, are you suggesting that Mark and or Matthew were originally written in Aramaic, and then (mis)translated into Greek?

I simply cannot understand your idea. If indeed your point focused upon the notion that M or M initially were written in Aramaic, do you have some evidence for this?

avi

arnoldo

No.
Jesus never wrote anything that we know of, however the gospels allegedly recorded His sayings which were latter written in Greek and Aramaic (Christianity did spread eastward as well as westward; See: Syriac Christianity )
The existence of Aramaic idioms in the NT is undisputed. The following book may help you understand this concept;

Origen also appeared to not understand certain aramaic idioms at times.

aa5874

But, the authors of the Gospels did refer to Hebrew Scripture so it is not even necessary for Jesus to have actually said anything in Aramaic.


The reference to Hebrew Scripture by the authors of the NT is undisputed. The so-called words of Jesus were already written in Aramaic and known to Jews for hundreds of years BEFORE the story of Jesus.

Even supposed birth of Jesus was written in Aramaic in Isaiah 7.14.

mountainman

Hang on a minute, does not the researcher of the archives, Eusebius of Caesarea, triumphantly cite that before him on his desk he has a hand-written letter exchange (in Syriac) between Jesus and Agbarus, King of Edessa?

avi

Arnoldo, one of us is confused, or, perhaps both of us!!

I am lost, because of your reply here:

Again, I inquire, are you writing here that Origen of Alexandria, a neoPlatonist, who, according to Wikipedia, studied Hebrew, was confused about particular idioms in the gospels, a confusion which you attribute to his ignorance of Aramaic? Let us suppose, for sake of argument, that Origen's knowledge of the Semitic language family was limited to Hebrew, and that therefore, he did not know any Aramaic. Then, in that scenario, I can appreciate your comments, only if you posit an original version of the gospels in Aramaic, rather than Greek, as seems to be the contention of Lancaster and Younan.

In the mere handful of excerpts of Origen's famous tract against Celsus, which I have read, I find myself in agreement with Celsus, but, I am unable to appreciate why you think that Origen has erred in some fashion, because of his misunderstanding some phrase--an idiom, which, you believe was intended as a Greek translation of an Aramaic original expression.

What I am looking for is a piece of evidence that shows the same text in Aramaic and Greek, with the former clearly dated prior to the latter. I believe that the evidence we have, which is minimal to non-existent, argues against this hypothesis. So far as I am aware, the earliest translation is from the Greek original into Syriac, not Aramaic, date, about mid fifth century. Perhaps this is wrong. Please correct me if I err.

The question is whether or not Origen was a "radical" Christian scholar, according to the OP. I doubt the value, in attempting to address this question, of introducing misrepresentation, (by way of mistranslation into Greek,) of Aramaic idioms, as an explanation of Origen's "errors".

Since Celsus was a native Greek author, apparently from Alexandria, living and writing at the end of the second century, I think we ought rather focus on the GREEK, not the Aramaic, arguments, which the third Century Alexandrian, Origen, offers in his attempt to refute Celsus.
In other words, arnoldo, I don't understand why you seek to introduce Aramaic into the discussion, it strikes me as a bit of a sidetrack.....

avi